Expert Opinion and Commentary

There’s been something that’s been sticking in my “craw” for a long time. It was something FOX news pundit Juan Williams said immediately after Obama gave his first “State of the Union” address and before Bobby Jindal gave the Republican rebutall.

Breathlessly (As it must always be with this statement) Juan Williams said something to the effect:

“What a great night for America when two PEOPLE OF COLOR represent their respective parties”

I have no quarrell with judging the night to be a “great” night in consideration of the background of the two men. I also have ABSOLUTELY no quarrell with Juan Williams who I find to be an extremely fair and thoughtful commentator and have felt that way since I became aware of him all the way back to when he was on CNN and hosting “Crossfire”.

My problem is with the “People of Color” statement. I have a problem with that statement no matter who utters it AND especially when white people utter it in “defense” of “People of Color”. I really want to know what is meant by those who utter the statement, what are they trying to imply, to whom are they addressing the statement, what people do they REALLY mean to include in that label, are they reaching their intended audience, do they care how that statement is percieved, do they care which people identify with that statement, do they care which people feel themselves to be included in that statement, do they care if or intend to cause confusion with that statement, do they have a secret agenda, do they even know what they REALLY mean by the statement?

I do not feel that many people who use that term have any ulterior motives. It’s just a term that has become so common that I feel most just use it as a throwaway term without any idea the significance of what the term means or implies.

DISCLAIMER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!:

Obviously as my tag-line implies I am a caucasian of European (Sicilian) ancestry. My wife is a Black-American woman. She is not from the suburbs. She is not a woman trying to run away from her Black identity by marrying a white-guy to become an “uppity” black. If that’s what she wanted then I was the wrong guy for her because my background is your stereotypical Italian background, not some “Lilly white”, sheltered background. That does NOT mean I came from the “Ghetto”, it only means that I was NOT raised with “blinders” on, I did NOT have some kind of “watered-down” upbringing, I saw alot of REAL things and I knew what was expected from me with my heritage. Me and my wife have been together for many years and have several children together. That obviously would make our kids mulatto’s.

I say all this because I DO NOT want anybody to accuse me of being a racsist. What I’m about to say has validity and I’m coming from a unique perspective. Me and my wife did NOT meet on a college campus where we think we’re some kind of “enlightened” thinkers who are the “smartest” people in the room. What I’m talking is REAL people talk. Black people are a part of my family, they are my children so I obviously do NOT want to “KEEP the black man down.”

Many will not like what I’m going to say. If you have criticism keep it intelligent. Statements that are accusatory or out right rude will not be taken seriously.

Back to the topic.

In all the years I’ve known my wife and her family and friends some of whom are my own personal friends whom I’ve had close relationships with, I have NEVER once heard any of them refer to themselves as “People of Color”. During my federal prison sentence I was obviously around alot of black guys and I NEVER once heard any of them refer to themselves as “People of Color”. I have asked my wife, some in her family, my friends and many black guys in prison if they consider themselves to be “People of Color” and NOT ONE has ever answered in the affirmative. 99% have always said they consider themselves black.

Lets analyze the “People of Color” term and try to figure out what is exactly meant by that. Taken strictly literally the phrase presents all kinds of problens. Who exactly is a “Person of Color”? Well, my dad is 100% Sicilian, he has the stereotypical Italian features, I can not count the times people have told me, “How Italian looking your dad is”. Now, my dad himself is completely unaware of the impression his appearance makes on other people. My dad doesn’t know “how Italian looking he is”, he is just a person trying to live a life.

However there is no mistaken that my dad is a VERY “dark” Italian, it is easy to see that he is darker than many people who label themselves “People of Color”. In the summer after a good tan, fugghedaboudit!!! Does my dad’s skin color make him a “Person of Color”? Because taken literally my dad is unquestionably a “Person of Color”. The brown shade of his skin won’t let anyone draw any other conclusion.

But here’s where we get into the controversy! I’m going to take off my “Mickey-the-Dunce” cap now. We all REALLY know what the term “People of Color” is meant by those who spew it. They mean mainly anyone “Black” or Hispanic and also when the climate favors them anybody else who is NOT “WHITE”.

So the fact that my dad has European ancestry no matter how “Dark” he is means the “People of Color” crowd don’t want him in their fraternity. OK, that’s fine, my dad’s skin tones can’t erase his European heritage therefore he is not allowed admitance into the “People of Color” club. I’m completely fine with that. BUT if the “People with Color” won’t let my dad in then they can’t have Bobby Jindal either.

See, what I have just done is establish that “People of Color” is NOT meant to be taken literally because if it was then my brown-skinned Sicilian-American dad would have to be accepted as part of the “People of Color” crowd. But ask anyone that is fond of throwing around the “People of Color” phrase and I guarantee they will ADAMANTLY refuse to include my dad in their “club” because of his European ancestry which technically classifies him as a Caucasian.

So now that we’ve eliminated the literal meaning of “People of Color” lets talk about the racial meanings. If you mean “People of Color” to mean races that are NOT “White” (I must put “WHITE” in quotations because as you can see people that are “white” (caucasian) can most definitely be people with brown-skin (Color)) then you can NOT include Bobby Jindal in your “People of Color” crowd.

Boby Jindal is an Indian (Hindu) and you can ask any anthropologist/geneticist and they will tell you that the ancestors of Bobby Jindal are classified as Indo-Europeans. These people include ALL Europeans, Slavs, Scandanavians, Saxons, Nords, Gauls, Meditteraneans, Germanics, Gaelics, Persians and Indians. That’s right Persian (Iranians) did NOT have a Semetic progenitor. Likewise the progenitor of the Indian peoples was common with that of the European peoples. The Persians and Indians then mixed with people from the Semetic races which probably accounts for what the “People of Color” crowd would claim to be the Persians and Indians “Color”. So if the Semetic blood mixed with the Caucasian blood is what makes Bobby Jindal a “Person of Color” to the “People of Color” crowd then that means that crowd would have to include ALL Semites. That’s right “People of Color”, Jews too! Now I can understand their argument for NOT including those of the Mongoloid race, dishonest as it may be considering genetically/anthropologically speaking this race is related to the (Fiegned horror) the Negriod race, but if you want Bobby Jindal, and your basing the “Color” argument on the mix of Semetic blood because your obviously not basing it on the mix of Indo-European (Caucasian) blood because then you would have to include “brown-skinned” Caucasians (which (Fiegned horror) could NEVER account for the “Color”) then as was said you must include ALL semites because now we’re talking race and NOT “Color”.

NOTE: I’m only conceding this supposition that it must be the Semetic ‘Blood” causing the “Color” because in the dishonest minds of the “People of Color” crowd the Causion “Blood” could never account for it. Truth be told it may in fact be the Caucasion “blood” causing the “Color” because the dominant Caucasion “Type” is NOT the blond-haired, blue-eyed, fair-skinned steroetype but rather the darker-haired, darker-skinned Meditteranean “Look”. The evidence suggest that the Semetic mixture in the Indians bloodlines may not even be that strong. Repeated genetic studies have established the Indian peoples closets similarities are with those of Western Eupropeans (Caucasians). There is also some studies that suggest some similarities between Indians and East Asians.

This begs the question who is responsible for Bobby Jindal’s “Color”? Since it is indisputable that Indians share genetic similarities with Europeans, are part of the Indo-European genetic classification and most likely came from a Caucasion progenitor, could it be (Fiegned outrage: Oh, the horror) his “Color” comes somewhere from his Caucasion “blood”.

Because the genetic truth (Look it up “People of Color” crowd) is that the Caucasion race is the MOST variable in terms of skin color. I feel ABSOLUELY comfortable in saying that skin-color is as much determined by CLIMATE as it is by the inherited melanin is ones genes.

Remember, I took off my “Mickey-the-Dunce” cap. We know those who spew the “People of Color” nonsense are really talking about “Blacks” and Hispanics. But they try to mask what they REALLY mean in some kind of superior intellectual, humane, moral, justifiable and equitable consciousness.It’s nothing more than an unspoken threat to anyone who may point out their hypocracy that any attempt to do so will be shouted down with racists accusations.

So if the “People of Color” crowd don’t literally mean color and don’t literally mean race then what do they mean? They’ll try to tell you that “People of Color” means anyone not of the “White” (Caucasian I guess?) race who has oppressed, discriminated, prejudiced and committed any other number of transgressions against the “black” and “brown” skinned peoples of the world (Whoever they’re suppossed to be). Well if you mean anyone who’s NOT Caucasian, be very careful because then you have to include the Semetic and Mongoloid races.

Anthropologists classify the races in basically four (4) categories: Caucasian, Negroid, Semetic and Mongoloid. So if “People of Color” is anyone not of the Caucasian race (As the labeling of Bobby Jindal as a “Person of Color”, because of suspected Semetic blood, would suggest) then that means the Semites and Mogoloids as well as the Negroids would ALL be “People of Color”. And is that REALLY what you want, leaders of the “People of Color” crowd? Because if you do you not only have to protest and file law suits on behalf of the “mistreatment” of “blacks” and hispanic’s. BUT ALSO for ALL the Asians and Semites which include Jews and Arabs too.

Are you sure that’s REALLY what you mean? Are you “Blacks” and Hispanics REALLY going to be quiet when “whitey” starts filling quota’s and affirmative action demands with Asians, Jews and Arabs because they’re “People of Color” too? Is that going to fit the “People of Color’s” agenda? Are they going to like it when “Whitey” starts spreading the affirmative action wealth to the other “People of Color”, the Mongoloids and Semites? Because if you only mean people of Negroid blood then say it. I have no problem with that. The continued fight for equality by “Black” people is not something I’m against and in most cases champion it, especially since my kids are mulatto meaning I have a vested interest in equality for the “Black” man.

This whole “People of Color” term is a term used by those with animosity towards the “white” man, who think they’re too intellectual and educated for their own good, and that good old “Lily-white, ivory-towered, harboring white-guilt apologist” crowd. Who think if they “Breathlessly” spout the phrase “People of Color” it absolves them of all their guilt and makes them feel better about themselves.

This “People of Color” term is ussually spoken “BREATHLESSLY” to fiegn some kind of higher-minded idealism. Those that speak it especially the “white intellects” do it to imply altruism on their part and that anybody who does not “get it” or “objects” in anyway is just a common ignorant. These “Whitey’s” make me sick! Just because you “pat yourself on the back” because you think Halle Berry is “Beautiful” or that Denzel is a “Great Actor” does not mean your not racist. And just because you go around saying “People of Color” does not mean your not racsist either. Likewise all you “intellectualized” blacks, just because you want to brand yourself and your people a “Person of Color” does not mean you are smarter than the rest of us. And I do not appreciate your implied threat that any intellectual concern for the meaning of the phrase will be shouted down as a racsist belief.

My wife lived what most would consider the “stereotypical” black experience. My friends in federal prison were not sell-out blacks, they knew what time it was. Any time I asked any of the black people in my life what they consider themselves, they always said unhesitatingly, BLACK. All this “People of Color” garbage is just that and it’s done by people with an agenda. But be careful because if anyone starts to wake-up, pay attention or gets some guts to question, a whole lot more people may get included in your “People of Color” club than you were willing to take in.

And stop with the whole “Black and Brown skinned peoples of the world” nonsense, because it makes even less sense than the “People of Color” phrase. Because there is NO doubt my dad is a brown-skinned man despite his European ancestry. Do you want the quota system and affirmative action to be available to him? And if not why? Are you now guilty of discrimination? And against a brown-skinned man at that?

If you mean race, say it. If you mean anybody not caucasian, say it. But if so you gotta let in a whole lot more people than you are probably willing. If you mean a specific race, say it. If you mean the Negroid race, say it.

A Note:

Do NOT criticize me for using the term Negroid. It is an ACCEPTED acedemic term to distinguish a specific race of people.

But you see how ridiculous the phrase “People of Color” is? See how it can be interpreted in many different ways? See how it is nearly impossible to pin down what exactly does it mean and who it exactly includes? And how when you do get specific with the phrase it starts to mean things and includes peoples those who promote the phrase never meant it to be nor includes people those promters never wanted to include.

The phrase is a dishonest phrase used to promote a political agenda and slience any criticism no matter how interested, concerned or honest that criticism may be.

And don’t think there isn’t discrimination amongst the “white”. Does anyone think for a second that the W.A.S.P.’s or even the Irish do not consider Italians to be of inferoir bloodlines, even going so far as to label the the N-word? Or even Italians themselves who consider Sicilians to be of a lower class, even calling them the N-word?

And how does a “fair-skinned” Hispanic get included in the “People of Color” crowd. The Hispanic has the Spaniard surname because of colonizing explorers who were of Caucasian, European, Meditteranean bloodlines. That’s right European Spaniards ARE considered Caucasian! FACT! These Spaniards mixed with other bloodlines on their exploratory expeditions that in many cases were NOT even of Negroid bloodlines. Somehow these Hispanics are now classified with “People of Color” when they probably have NO “People of Color” blood. See ridiculous and dishonest this phrase is? It can mean anything to anybody and manipulated to include anybody to fit a specific agenda.

Civiliztions have been in existence for over 3,500 years. Did we all come from a common progenitor? Probably. Does it matter from where or from what race that progenitor originated? Not to me. At this point in civilization there has been so much mixing and mingling that there are NO pure blood races left anywhere in the world. We are all a mix of something or the other. Most times the only thing that signifies an ethnicity is the persons last name. I have relatives that have so many mixes they’re Italian in name only. And what difference does it make?

I think the world is a better place for it’s diversity. The thing that’s killing the world is all this polarization from the “race-baiters” who promote a special interset. They pretend like they’re fighting for the rights of the minority classes but if someone had a magic-wand to wipe out inequality these so-called champions of the “underclass” and disenfranchised” would be the first to try and break that magic-wand because the day there is no more inequality is the day the jig is up for these charlatans. It is they who are the hypocrites as they fan the flames of racial resentment.

There is NO such thing as an exclusive “People of Color”. Anyone promoting it is dishonest or brainwashed or both.

Zoroastrianism is one of the oldest living religions in the world. The origins of the religion are in doubt concerning specific dates as is the specific date of birth of it’s founder Zoroaster. What is certain is that Zoroaster was of great interest to both ancient Greek and Roman philosophers who wrote with concern about his life and teachings. But what is of even more certain significance was the influence Zoroastrianism had on the Western religions of the world.

The contribution Zoroastrianism made to the eschatology of the three major Western world religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) was eternal. Zoroastrianism brought about the concept of Heavan and Hell, the free will of humans, an end of world armeggedeon and the idea of the eternal life or death of a humans soul to be judged by God based on the type of deeds performed by the person while living.

The faith practiced by the Hebrews prior to their exile and before their return under Persian rule and influence of the Persians ‘religion, Zoroastrianisn, had no eschatology concerning the final resting place of one’s soul. It was the mingling with Zoroastrianism that changed all that. Maybe the reason why both these faiths gelled so peaceably was because they were both founded upon a monotheistic belief.

So because Judaism begot Christianity then Islam, the Zoroastrian influence on Judaism forever changed the way the Western world views the condition of life and the hereafter. Prior to Zoroastrian influence the Hebrew Bible makes no mention of a bodily or soulful resurrection, whether Heavan or Hell will be the final resting place, what in fact was God’s purpose for mankind and the universe or if God would come back to judge all who had lived. These ideas which are so ingrained in Western religious thought and teaching all came into being under the influence of Zoroastrianism.

The ancient inhabitants of Persia were known as Aryans (noble ones). (Don’t confuse the term with Hitler’s perversion of it). Persia was what the Greeks called these peoples but they had always referred to themselves as Aryans. This is the land that is today called Iran. (Iran/Aryan. See the relation?). In fact Iranians refer to themselves as Persians. Not Arabs, please don’t confuse the two. A Persian is a Persian , and an Arab is an Arab. So the ancient ancestors of the Iranian peoples are the ancient Persian Empire and the practicioners of Zoroastrianism.

Some Aryans migrated East into the Indus valley and began what would develop into what is now known as the Hindu religion. Those Aryans who stayed in their Mesopotamian home began the civilization that eventually was known as the Persian Empire.

Zoroaster was considered an Aryan prophet or a priest in his religion and may have had a link to a royal Persian family. Like the Buddha, Zoroaster was searching for meaning in his life when one day while wandering through the wilderness he was visited by an angel who revealed God’s plan to him. Zoroaster began to preach his message but met little success and was ostracized and branded a heretic. Undettered Zoroaster was able to convince the monarch Vishtaspa to give him an audience. After a number of tries Zoroaster finally convinced Vishtaspa in what he was preaching and as a result Vishtaspa converted his entire kingdom to the new religion of Zoroaster. Zoroastrianism spred like wildfire to the Aryan peoples.

Zoroaster taught that there was one true God who created the world and his name is Ahura Mazda. This God had always been worshiped by the ancient Aryans and Zoroaster declared Him to be the only true God. Ahura Mazda was a personal God who was all wise, all persuasive and could not be outwitted.

It was Zoroaster who developed the idea of a competition between the good and evil forces of the world. This was the concept of dualism that was foriegn to religion at this point in history. In Zoroaster’s teachings the problem of evil in the world was an onctological reality that was all pervasive and it was humanity’s job to confront that evil and do something about it.

Zoroaster was also the first to introduce the concept of free will. He said that all humans are born good and pure without the stain of original sin but they were given by God the option to pursue good or evil. The final destiny of their souls depended on if that that freedom of choice would be expressed in the form of virtue or selfishness. There was no pre-determination involved in Zoroaster’s teaching of God’s role in humanity. The right to act in a moral, ethical and compassionate manner rested completely in the hands of mankind. They had a right to choose to make the world good or to give into evil temptations to make the world bad. Depending on the path that was chosen the person had the ability to reach salvation in this life and the life hereafter. The concept of reincarnation was outright rejected by Zoroaster’s teachings.

Zoroaster also introduced the idea of personal responsibilty as a result of the option of choice. The responsibility for deeds determines the human condition so in the end mankind is responsible for the world they create. Ethical standards were held in high regard by Zoroastrianism who taught the idea of good thought, word, conduct, charity, selflessness and deed.

Ahura Mazda allows the forces of good and evil to battle. No matter how much success the evil forces have they will lose in the end because the good qualities of Ahura Mazda will tip the scale against the pervaers of evil. Ahura Mazda’s wisdom and persusion impart an incredible perception about the way the world unfolds. In the end Ahura Mazda will come back to judge all mankind.

Before Zoroastrianism’s influence, polytheism was the popular religious practice. People prayed to many different gods for different things. It was Zoroaster who made a monotheistic belief more popular. Also Zoroaster gave evil a name, called, Ahriman, the adversary of Ahura Mazda. Ahriman was the precurrsor to the Christian version of satan. A foe ivolved in an epic battle with the benevolent creator God for the soul’s of men. It can also be seen how the wise and persuasive Ahura Mazda of Zoroastrianism evolved into the all-knowing, all-powerful Christian God.

Whether any of Zoroaster’s teachings were in fact the result of an Heavanly revelation or a hallucination is not important. What is important is that Zoroaster’s teachings prove that since the ancient times man has been consumed with a scheme for the afterlife, how ethical and righteous behavior affect the final resting place of our souls, the interaction between good and evil and a final day of judgement for all mankind.

Since the recent murder of the Army soldier at the recruiting center and the new statements from the accused as to his actions, I feel it is important for me give the world a little insight into these black-Americans who convert to Islam in prison.

Serving almost 5 years in America’s federal prison system, known as the B.O.P., I had an up close view on how these black-Americans are targeted for convert by radical Muslims. Now I do not know how dedicated these Muslims truly were to their Islamic faith or whether they were truly just resentful towards America for all the real and imagined grievances and intent on promoting a jihad but what I do know is that most of the black-American converts had no true knowledge of Islam as a faith.

The real Muslims no matter how misguided still have a connection to the Koran as they feel their jihad is a true holy war and they themselves soldiers to Allah’s cause. But most of the black-American prison converts whether they rolled with the real Muslims, 5%ers, Nation of Islam or any other Islamic off shoots are only in it as a hate whitey/America brotherhood. I know this sounds harsh but I’m just speaking the truth.

Many of these blacks come into prison and they’re obviously and sometimes justly disenfranchised and bitter. They are quickly preyed upon by either the real Muslims or the already converted black-Americans. Federal prison in particular can be a very draining experience. The worst part is that because you are a federal inmate you’re probably living in a prison out of state and hundreds of miles from home. Visits become a rare occurence, 2 or 3 times a year if you’re very lucky. Human survival dictates you make friends with whom you feel comfortable and can count on. The black-American makes up a significant segment of the federal inmate population. Sympathetic hands are extended and quickly accepted most times before the less cagey inmate even knows how he is being co-opted.

These vulnerable inmates are quickly brainwashed by the more experienced inmates. Beyond having a new “religious” convert, the experienced inmate is also trying to get the naive inmate on his side because you never know when you’ll need a subordinate to do your bidding. If you as the experienced inmate can drape in a sympathetic fashion that you’re trying to enrich the new inmate with something positive the conversion is a walk in the park.

The Muslims in jail real or fake spew mostly hate whitey and hate the system (As in America) rhetoric. They pull converts into their camp by blaming their entire plight on the white-man and his system. All responsibilites for the inmates actions and decisions are blamed on the oppression of the white-man and America. The inmate has only been antagonized and forced into a criminal lifestyle because of the system the white-man has set up.

Now some may agree with these accusations. I’m sure we could debate the societal, sociological and establishment factors that contribute to crime. I don’t really care about how much of a contributor are any of those or other factors. What is true is that those factors are exaggerated to inflame radicalism and hatred. The new convert blames his plight and the entire plight of his bretheren on “WHITE-AMERICA”. Once the brainwashing is complete the fringe hate speech only intensifies and is diseminated to others.

I’ve seen young gullible black kids, scared to death upon first arrival in federal prison and in no time under the tuteledge of some hate-mongering Muslim convert this once meek youngster is wearing a kuffi, carrying around a prayer rug, dousing himself with religious oil and cutting the “chow” line to get his kosher meal while spewing as much hate-the-man rhetoric that’s been drilled into his head. If he had any bitterness and feelings of disenfranchisement coming in it has now multiplied 10-fold and as I’ve said the inmates entire criminal past is rationalized and excused away and all blame is laid at the feet of the “White-man’s America”.

The real Muslims very quietly and secretly foster this attitude. The real Muslims mainly stay with themselves and ussually have a “senior” black-American convert who does all the recruiting and dissemination of hate rhetoric.

These real Muslims could care the least about their black-American Muslim bretheren. All the real Muslims consider the converts to be is pawns for them to use to get out the hate ideology and to have future hate-America converts who once released can lay the groundwork for converts in the community and loyal soldiers to carry out their orders. These real Muslims have no respect for black-Americans, don’t think for a second they identify with them because they’re not white too. Oh sure, they make these blacks think that they’re with them but it’s only a front to win converts.

News flash, black-America, real Muslims are just as rascist as your common neo-nazi or KKK member. Behind the black man’s back they liberally drop the N-word. The black man has this idea that anyone not white is down with them, well, I’m sorry but other races are racsist too. The forgien born hispanic’s drop that N-word pretty freely too. And here’s another shocker, native Africans don’t identify with black-Americans. The hate whitey/America rhetoric is foisted upon the black-American only so the Muslims have radicalized American citizens who can make moves for them.

As I said in the beginning these real Muslims still have some connection with whatever is in the Koran. I have no idea what they really know or believe about the Koran but what I do know is that they’re disseminating hate speech from the Koran. I feel the Koran is just a mish-mash of contradictions so verses can be cherry-picked and manipulated by the dishonest to promote their particular agenda. My point is that the real Muslims have an Islamic and Arab foundation as a starting point. But the black-American converts are only vested in the hate whitey/America foundation.

I’ve heard black-American Islamic converts spewing rhetoric where they claim that Allah is a different God than the Jewish, YHW or the Christian, Jehovah. Some actually believe that they’re 3 distinctly different Gods. They have absolutely no knowledge that all 3 are the same God of Abraham. If you told them that or that Chritianity, Judaism and Islam were known as Abrahamic faith they’d look at you as if you were speaking a foriegn language then go into a vicious anti-Semetic, anti-Christian rant where they accuse Jesus Christ of being the “white-man’s God”.

The exclusively black fringe Muslim sects (5%ers/Nation of Islam) are even more ridiculous. The real Muslims are involved in a constant distortion where they claim a connection to Abraham. As much as a fantasy that is, at least the Muslims are working from the angle of trying to write their way into history. These fringe indigenous black-American sects are right up their with “Stars Wars” or “Star Trek” or any fairy tale you can think of. It’s all just completely made up where these jailhouse philosophers try to weave a narrative that the black man is the chosen man and the white man is the devil.

There are some real Muslims who aren’t looking for trouble and they do find some way for the Koran to work in a positive way. But these black-American prison converts have no clue. They wouldn’t know how to get a message of peace from even a moderate Muslim they’ve been so brainwashed with hate whitey rhetoric. I would confidently bet that 99% of them have never even read from the Koran. Everything is just a regergitation of hate speeches they’ve listened to. By far the favorite Muslim convert line is; I’m Muslim, I don’t eat no pork. That’s about the extent of their knowledge besides all the hate whitey/America rhetoric.

If you want to claim you’re a peace-loving Muslim and you’re going to manipulate the Koran to paint the message as one of peace then I’ll cut you some slack and give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you’re gonna turn what’s suppossed to be a faith into an excuse to hate America and blame the white-man for every problem and evil in the world and you couldn’t quote one line from your Koran when you pretend to be a devout Muslim then you’re a joke and a sucker for letting yourself be used as a flunky by the real Muslim jihadists who would cut your fake Muslim ass loose in a minute.

But this is what really happens in federal prison. Gullible converts are made. They’re like pavlovian dogs spreading a message of hate into the community. In prison Islam is considered this anti-everything American thing. It really has nothing to do with religion, it’s just an act of rebellion to the black-American inmate. Intrinsically they feel they’re getting back at a system that has imprisoned them. Brothers-in-arms are found amongst fellow inmates who want to point blame somewhere for their incarceration. Joining this anti-authority brotherhood gives a new meaning to their life. They actually feel they now have a higher purpose to live for.

For many just being part of that brotherhood where they constantly spew their hateful rhetoric is enough but the more radicalized feel the need to act out their resentments on their percieved America enemy.

They’re all a laughing stock even to their more reasonable black-American brothers who never buy into that hate speech. Those black-Americans scoff at the fake Muslims and many times continue to call them by their Christian name or street nick names refusing to indulge these jokers in calling them by their new Muslim name. It’s so ridiculous, the converts get some Muslim name but they still has their Christian given name stitched onto their uniforms.

Now by no means are these joker converts the majority. The majority of the black-American inmates do NOT buy into that hate speech and blame “white-America” game. Most inmates are man enough to take responsibility for their situation. However there are enough of these brainwashed converts who are carrying the message back to their hood. I would say it’s a safe bet that these radicalized inmates eventually hitting the steet FAR out number the so-called military “right-wingers” that the DHS was so worried about. Believe me when I tell you that the prison converts are the real worry on the horizon. Their conversion is founded on a false and distorted view that is inflamed by hate.

This is how the Muslims are laying the groundwork to infiltrate America. In the Middle East there whole identity is wrapped in a religious jihad and they’ve been doing it for centuries. But this prison conversion infiltration has the potential to change the American culture. And there is no religious aspect to their conversion. It’s just some hate filled, blame filled ideology.

If the progressives who rant that Guantanomo should be closed with the capured terrorist housed in American federal prisons want to create a bigger problem with hate filled, blame filled converts assimilating there message to the street then by all means continue with your cause. But I warn you, you progressive intelligencia you will not be spared by those converts who blame America and Whitey for everything.

We all know about the wanna-be down white girl. Now I have absolutely nothing against interracial pairings. I just feel they should be real and not the indulgement of “jungle fever” or an attempt to prove a point, ussually that the white person is down.

Do you know how many white-boys are doing time because they listened to a little Tupac or Biggie, maybe a some Jay-Z or Nas or got caught up with the whole gangster rap thing. It’s ridiculous they think the rap music is actual reality. They buy into the whole gangster persona’s of these rap stars. I don’t know if they’re really that stupid or if these white-boys just wanna believe that it’s all true. These rap stars have a vested interest in really making their suburban white-boy audience really believe that the stuff they rap about is the life they have lived.

But here’s the analogy: Do you think Robert DeNiro or Al Pacino or James Gandolfini really for one second think they’re the characters they play? Do you really think for one second any of those actors would invade the real gangster world to try and turn their screen roles into reality? These actors know that they’re just actors and the know the roles they play are just roles they play.

99% of these rap stars are suburban kids or if they are from the hood they’re just kids that can put what they’ve seen to verse. The kids from the hood know the rap stars are really soft, they love they music only for what it represents. The words speak to them, they identify with what is rapped.

How for one second do those words speak to the little white punks from suburbia? But even the real gangsters from the hood promote the persona of these fake rap stars. And the reason is because the gangsters from the hood are hustling these little fake rap punks. They’re shaking them down for protection or the fake rap punks pays them to hang around to enhance their street cred. So when one of these fake rap punks from the hood gets paid, the hood gets paid because the fake rapper needs the real thugs to remain relevant in the game. So that’s the vested interest in promoting the fake rep and history of these fake thugs.

And don’t think for a second the real thugs carry the fake thugs forever. Once the fake rap thug gets played out the real thugs move on to the next fake rap thug to prop up. That’s why these punk rappers all end up broke. A huge amount of their salary goes to maintaining a posse. They have to for their own protection.

But the little bitch white-boys from suburbia buy it all hook line and sinker. They try to turn these rap lyrics into reality. Remember the rapper only wants the white-boy to believe it’s reality so they can sell records. So the whole industry constantly attempts to gas up the white-boy to keep the money rolling in.

But trying to live the rap lyrics gets the white-boy in serious trouble. The hood knows what is and isn’t real therfore there’s no desire to live a fantasy. eventually the white-boy is selling drugs or he kills someone, the whole time thinking he’s a gangster. In the end the white-boy gets bitched. Either his rich family buys him out of trouble or if the can’t the white-boy pays the price with a bid . Then after it’s all said and done the white-boy goes back to being a white-boy.

Then you got the little wanna-be down white girl. You’ve seen them, sometimes they got the waves in their hair or they press the front of their hair down real tight, trying to make everyone believe their hair is coarse. Y’know the type, if you close your eyes and listen to their voice you’d think you were listening to a stereotypical black girl. These white chicks always seem to think they’re better looking than the black girls just cause they’re white. They think the black guys actually think they’re hotter than the black girls and that it’s just not some kind of black power play.

These white girls are so deluded, their entire identity depends upon being a down white girls, they think they’re too cool to ever even give the white-boy the time of day. They would never even dream of stooping so low. Going with black guys proves their coolness and downness. It means everything to them.

It doesn’t matter what kind of fake thug the black guy is, how broke he always is, how much he mooches off them, how many of her ugly fat friends he bangs. The white girl will put the blinders on and lie to herself all for the price of being a down white girl.

They don’t care how many black guys knock them up. The more black guy baby daddy drama they got, the more gangster cred they have and the better that makes them feel. They get played and suckered and passed from fake black thug to fake black thug. But you could never tell these down white girls otherwise because it’s all a badge of honor for them.

Eminem is that WHITE-GIRL and that WHITE-BOY. He’s been able to live the lie his entire career bouyed by the record execs and a black Hip-Hop community who was having their palms greased to give this little Eminem bitch credibility. All the major players in the Hip-Hop community propped this little Eminem fag up because it was all good for the Hip-Hop communties bottom line.

The powers that be sold this fraud hard to wanna-be down white-boy America. They even presented him as a renegade and rebel by insiting conventional white America against him. Antagonizing them to speak out against this so called outsider the better to get the money of the wanna be down white-boys who were all too enthused to go against the tide and go with this so-called rebel. The wanna-be down crowd was legitimized by this Eminem fag. They now had the ok to call themselves the N-word with impunity because one of their own was now one of them.

The biggest joke was Eminem’s song “I am whatever they say I am” (sic). This little bitch actually says in the song, “radio won’t even play my jam”. Are you kidding me bitch?! You had the audacity to say that. And the white-boys bought it. What a complete lie that was. This little white bitch was the darling of MTV and every radio station. You couldn’t go anywhere without seeing or hearing this little Slim-Shady bitch.

So he was always a fraud. He was always living a lie. Everybody propped the bitch up to make money off him. Well like the white girl who ends up back at mommy and daddy’s house, using her white parents to help her raise her black kids (You’ve seen these poor little black kids with their hair a complete mess because none of the white people raising them know how to take care of black people’s hair) and the white-boy who puts on his suit and tie and gets a job in the corporate world after he’s been nearly scared to death trying to turn a rap ryhme or video into real life, Eminem has to go back to his little white world to be the white boy he’s always been.

I say that Eminem is the classic white girl because like the white girl this bitch’s entire identity revolved around him being down. You couldn’t give this little fag all the money in the world to even let a white boy hang out in his posse. There was no way this Eminem homo was gonna let another white boy invade his status as the downest of the down white boys. If a white boy ever made a little head way with Eminem’s crew I could just see how jealous this little bitch would get. He’d make a catty woman look manly.

I saw this bitch on TV making fun of white people in the same voice that black guys use when they poke fun at the corny white guys. I was just stunned. Many times I’ve heard black guys personally and on TV’s and movies put on that corny voice to make fun of white people. And here’s a white guy doing the same thing to make fun of white people. Are you kidding me?!!

When did this bitch become down? Did he ever hang in the hood? Did he ever sell drugs in the hood? And I mean for real not just some white-boy fabrication where the white-boy deludes himself into thinking that he really needs to do those kinds of things or is trying to prove how down he is. I’m talking about doing those things because it’s neccessary for your hood survival.

Oh ya bitch, when did you ever do a REAL bid? Not some punk ass 50 Cent drug program bid. I’m talking about going up-state or getting on the air-lift. When you done that bitch then maybe we’ll talk about giving you hood status you little fag.

Imagine, what are you gonna do with yourself you little white-GIRL bitch? Just be like all the other played out white-girls who go back to being white-girls after they been run through by every black guy. HA,HA,HA,HA!!! You little fag.

And to all you black Hip-Hoppers out there. I know you’re all about getting paid. I know it’s gonna be very tempting to sell out to the powers that be who are gonna turn to you to resurrect their little cash cow. I’m begging you, maintain your dignity. Be true to your creation, Hip-Hop. Don’t let this little fag, punk white-boy back into your game. Don’t give this punk bitch any credibility. You were part of allowing this little fag to attain fame and fortune. Isn’t that good enough? The black man doesn’t have to and must not sell out to this wanna-be down faggity-ass bitch.

Hey Em, you bitch, I bet Marky-Mark and none of his fun bunch ever sucked the ass of a little fag like Bruno. Sometimes life is so just.

The life of King David is the greatest example to the Jewish people of total devotion to the Lord through glory and struggle and to the Lord’s fulfillment of His promises and commitment to His people through that total devotion and despite their transgressions.

The covenant of God to His chosen people who came to be known as the Jews through Abraham was well established by the time of David. What makes David such a significant character in the sacred Jewish narrative is that God deepened His covenant by promising His chosen people not only great things through their commitment to Him and His to them but that a coming messiah would be a direct descendnt from the line of David to establish the Lord’s eternal kingdom to come.

David was a modest shepard boy; the youngest of Jesse’s 7 other impressive sons when the prophet of the Lord, Samuel arrived in Bethlehem at God’s direction to annoint a son of Jesse as the future King of Israel. Samuel didn’t identify David as chosen untill God told him that David was a man after his own heart who would do His will. As the forgotten son of Jesse, surviving on his own tending his flock, David developed courage under fire that served him well as a warrior King of the future unified nation of Israel.

The great act that made David beloved amongst the Jews was his slaying of the feared Philistinian giant Goliath. The young David rose from the freightened Jewish population to face this indomitable foe because he was so insulted by the defilments of his God coming from the giant’s mouth. Facing extreme odds but nevertheless determined to defend the honor of God, David put his complete trust in God liberating the Jews from this Philistinian threat.

Eventually King Saul became jealous of David, forcing him to flee for his life. Though anointed, David lived as a fugitive for 15 years. Isolated, depressed and homeless, David, the composer of many psalms, some of the deepest, most inspired literature devoted to the Lord of all-time, developed a deeper inner trust, showing heartfelt patience that the Lord would deliver him to his anointing. In fact on two occassions David was presented with opportunities to kill Saul but he was humble enough to respect God’s King, instead waiting for God alone to fulfill His promise.

As a newly crowned King, David was eager to glorify the Lord. Deciding to bring the Ark into Jerusalem, Israel’s new capital, David acted carelessly in his presentation causing an embarrassing accident and death. Instead of wallowing in anger or dejection, David reflecyed on his mistakes, corrected them and then glorified God the way He demanded.

Awash in wealth, military success and prosperity David committed the sin of adultery and a Machiavellian murder plot to cover up his sin bringing about the darkest times of his life. When rebuked by the prophet Nathan for his sin David solemnly and sincerely repented, never rebelling against the Lord for his punishment. Even when his beloved son Absalom organized a coup against him David displayed his intense integrity for his love of God by refusing to abuse the Lord’s power through the Ark to get him out of a situation of his own causing; fighting but submitting his future to the will of God.

David never once blamed God for his many trials and tribulations which in fact insilled in him a grace and skill to be the great leader God intended him to be. Through glory and pain David’s spiritual foundation remained grounded. As a human, David was not immune to temptation but his faith and patience in; love and worship of; and penance and sincerity to God persevered. David possessed a pure humility in his service to God who recognized the deep love and commitment in ultimate fulfillment of His covenant and through David God promised eternal life in His eternal kingdom to come. For the Jewish people, David is the greatest representation of God’s covenant to His people through the Jews commitment to God.

Buddhists might say that the only way to reach nirvana is to understand that there is no self. That sounds negative right? But Buddhism is a deep existential inquiry into you as a human being. One must relize that there is no self-salvation. That sounds selfish, right? But only upon realization of anatman can one live in accordance with everything in the world.

The Buddha’s first noble truth is the existence of dukkha which is a deep dissatisfaction with the suffering inherent in life. Dukkha is experienced through physical pain, experiential pain and finally a deep existential pain leading to emptiness. To combat this we as humans try to fill the void with abstract ideas of goodness, virtues, Gods/gods and worst of all our ego.

Our problem is that we never realize anitya. Absolutely nothing in this world is forever even from second-to-second. There are only momentary, fleeting spurts of both happiness and sadness. Our desire to make these impermanent constructs and abstracts eternal, our attempts to create situations and manipulate people among other selfish devices so that we get the favorable results we desire is what ultimately leads to the cycle of trsna. “I” desire so “I” attempt to satisfy that desire so “I” can be happy without realizing my happiness is anitya causing me further dukkha leading to the vicious cycle of trsna.

In our quest for nirvana we must realize pratitya samutpada, meaning the whole world and everything in it is interconnected in an overlapping, unseperated, interdepent way. That we are atomistic or autonmous is an illusion. Pratitya Samutpada becomes a tool to realizing anatman. A practical way to start is by eliminating the “I” from all sentences. Once the subject “I” is removed the the action of the verb is also eliminated. In the larger scheme it becomes not about how “this” will affect “I” but how “this will affect everything. Anatman and pratitya samutpada must go hand and hand or else the events, circumstances and actions of others and things will always determine your existence (Attachment) when the idea is to realize your actions, circumstances and events determine the existence of others affect your life. But to live anatman you laugh or cry for others because you are connected to their joy and pain. You feel the emotion for the emotion alone not feel it through the prism of your own reality. This experience of anatman is the experience of sati; an elimination of the filters, concepts and attachments through which we view the world allowing us to have a direct experience with reality. This union leads to a purification because at this point there is no choice but to act morally, ethically and compassionately because all abstract codes and hopes of karmic deliverance have been eliminated from ones options of both choice and inquiry.

This is theoretical nirvana but unlike the generic understanding of a blissful end, that you have reached the final destination, Buddhist teaching will tell us nirvana is only the beginning. It becomes a perpetual awareness of the moment. But nirvana poses a problem because it leads to sunyata; a feeling of emptiness. Because everything is anitya how can nirvana not be? But one must embrace their sunyata because it is further liberation. Once one accepts that even nirvana is anitya they will truly never desire any attachments because they are all sunyata.One now lives in a perpetual state of sati, where their anatman is pure allowing all their actions to be intuitively moral, ethical and compassionate without being driven by karma because pratitya samutpada is now at the core of their being and there are no such thing as attachments.

The Buddha wasn’t giving any definitive answers about the human condition. He was raising questions so that mankind could improve their own condition. Since everything is pratitya samutpada and there may be no self, meaning ego and selfishness should not factor in our decisions, the overall condition of mankindand the world as a whole should improve as a matter of evolution. Once the world realizes that then everyone is enlightened and if there is a nirvana then the world can live it.

Having said all that the Buddha would have probably replied; who ever said there was no self.

To achieve the deepest experience of Brahman-Atman one must realize the Hindu phrase Tat Twam Asi. Our endless desire to fulfill our souls with the empty “things” of the world can never be overcome untill we understand that “we are what we seek” (Tat Twam Asi).

To Hindu’s, Brahman is ultimate reality while Atman is you. To realize that Brahman- Atman is one and the same, that the fusion between the two is the only reality that truly exists, that the fact that we exist is Brahman is only possible through the ability to process Tat Twam Asi into every pore of our being; to know it, feel it, understand it, live it without ever having to articulate it.

The problem is that we live maya, stopping us from ever realizing Tat Twam Asi.We live ontologically apart from ourselves and reality by worshipping the “things” of the world and by letting the people and nonsense of the world determine our reality. To have a complete identity with Brahman-Atman we must experience moksha which is the final step to liberation and is not intellectually possible.Moksha is a progression through “stuff” untill you reach ananda, at which point you have achieved Brahma-Atman. Tat Twam Asi is all of this rolled together.

In a “prior” life I lived the life of a rap video. I was that guy Jay-Z and Biggie rapped about. You could also say I was the stereotypical Italian. Money, cars, clothes and hoes was all I knew since I could remember. Any material possession, whim fulfulled, eye-candy galore, leisure-time and a stature and respect in the game; it was all mine. But not a bit of it stopped me from experiencing avidya. I had everything yet I could never put my finger on what was missing or why I was searching for that missing something. My egotistical pursuit of gratification and recognition was plunging me deeper into maya.What I didn’t understand in the midst of my maya was that there should never have been a need to seek to fill the void that is avidya because, that I exist means there is nothing outside my soul that can fill that void. Then I did five years in federal prison and I was humbled and de-humanized to my core being.

Do I feel guilty for the life I lived? No way! Do I understand the moral depravity of that life? No doubt! Can I in the same breath justify that life? You bet! Does any of it matter at this point? Absolutely not! Why? Because all of it allowed me to experience moksha.

Hinduism tells us it is not important to be consistent but rather to be right at the moment. So whether I was good or bad, right or wrong is not important because my life’s progression allowed me to experience moksha or maybe the progression was moksha. Did the humbling of federal prison transform me? Who knows! I’ll never know and don’t really care to ever know because you can not think your way to moksha.Moksha is like standing at the top of the mountain without ever having to have climbed it. It’s living in reality and not dwelling or trying to re-live or re-create the past in any way. It’s shutting the chapter on your past and being content to live in the present moment.

In the end the only thing that can liberate you from maya to allow you to experience moksha to ultimately achieve Brahman-Atman is Tat Twam Asi. There are no directions, map or step by step transformation, it isn’t even an epiphany. It’s a transcendent unity of mind, body and spirit allowing you to have a complete peace and clarity with the simplicity of just being. To experience this is the only way to be comfortable in your own skin and be the best you can be to everyone and everything without ever having to battle your conscience to do so.

I’m not going to be so naive and say that my “prior” life was not moksha because it may very well have been. But I never was able to experience moksha at that time because I never realized Tat Twam Asi. The only way I was ever able to finally experience moksha and move on to a blissful being was by finally realizing Tat Twam Asi.

Tat Twam Asi is the ultimate liberation from the shackles that bind us to our illusions.

To understand what’s really going on to arrive at an intelligent decision about who’s beefs are real one has to study the history of the issue. The problem is that too much misinformation is out there. The Muslims have taken the lead from their prophet and created a complete fallacy in regards to the “Palestinian”people. The Muslims have been so successful in legitimizing the myth , just as they have been with their religion, that the uninformed populus just takes the Palestinian “grievances” at face value. Forget about Anti-semitism!!!! The anti-semites are gonna spread their lies anyways. It’s the myth of the native Palestinian Arab/Muslims that’s the REAL problem.

This myth has been so diseminated into the cultures of the world by the progressive, HATE America/Israel, everything about Islam is “pure” and “good” and must be heard crowd that people, even contemporary born Palestinian Arab/Muslims, actually think they are a native people with a legitimate claim to the land.

Well kiddies, I’m here to educate you on how they don’t!!!!!!!

This will NOT be a theological opinion. It will ONLY be an historical presentation and logical analysis.

That being said, I do in a way violate that statement in order to give a reference point on what the Jews claim is their right to the Land. After giving that perspective their will be NO further defense to the Land in the name of God on behalf of the Jews.

According to the Hebrew Bible, Abraham was commanded by God to leave his place of residence in Ur of the Chaldeans and go to the Land of Canaan to build a nation.

NOTE:

No where in the Hebrew Bible does it definitively say that Ur of the Chaldeans was the place of Abraham’s birth. But what the historical evidence is certain of is that Abraham was born somewhere in the Mesapotamian regoin. There is even faint evidence that Abraham may have migrated westward from a slightly more eastern location. And what the historical evidence makes ABSOLUTELY clear is that there is ABSOLUTELY NO way Abraham migrated ALL the way up from Arabia. That would have been highly unlikely trek during that period in history.

Back to the Biblical account; God made a covenant with Abraham to build His nation through Abraham and his descendants with the Promised Land of Canaan being part of that covenant. God promised to always be loyal and to protect Abraham and his descendants and for them to spread the message of God to the world. God’s end of the covenant was to stand for eternity because once God makes a promise he NEVER brakes it. Man may fail but God NEVER fails.

Right or wrong, agree or disagree, that is the Jewish claim to the Promised Land.

Well, according to the Bible Abraham sired Isaac who sired Jacob who became Israel. Jacob had 12 sons (The 12 tribes of Israel). One of those sons (Joseph) was sold by his brothers into slavery in Egypt. Joseph eventually rose to become a xonfidant of the Pharoah. Meanwhile there was a famine in Canaan causing Jacob’s family and people to migrate to Egypt. There they were reunited with Joseph and accepted into Egyptian culture. The Israelites became a prescence in Egypt. Over time they grew in such numbers that the Pharoah enslaved all the Israelites for fear their numbers would enable them to overthrow him.

It is at this point that Moses frees the Israelites, leads them on a 40 year journey through the wilderness where eventually under the leadership of Joshua the Israelites invade the Land of Canaan and take back the Promised Land. Moses himself dies on the other side of the Jordan River forbidden by God from entering the Promised Land for disobiedience exhibited during the 40 year trek through the wilderness.

Did it all happen as it was written in the Hebrew Bible? Who knows! What is a fact was that there was a migration into the Land during that time. Did the Israelites slaughter the Canaanites? Probably. But what is true is that the Canaanite culture disappeared from history thousands of years ago, it’s inhabitants killed off or otherwise assimilated into other cultures,( most likely the Israelite culture) adpopting the ways and customs of those conquering cultures. This was some 1,700 some odd years before Mohammed even claimed to have his first “hallucinations” about being visited by the angel Gabriel!!! And some 1,800 some odd years before the Arabs began their assaults through the Middle East!!!!

So if anybody has an indigenous claim to this ancient Land it is the Canaanites. But regretably, because they have been lost to history, it would be impossible to repopulate the land with Canaanites.

Do NOT believe the PLO’s absurd claim that they are the indigenous Canaanites. That would be impossible as clearly demonstrated!!! Arabs are indigenously from Arabia (Arabs? DUH!! See the root word?) NOT from Canaan. If anyone has indigenous Canaanite blood flowing through their viens today you would probably have to say they are Jews being that it was Jews who conquered the ancient land the Canaanites where inhabiting then ruled that land through a succession of Judges and Kings for hundreds of years.

The Israelites conquered the land of Canaan in the 12th and 13th centuries B.C.E. First the Judges ruled then at the behest of the Israelites themselves God gave them a King. Saul was Israel’s first King. God, dissatisfied with Saul’s rule ordered the prophet Samuel to annoint a young shepard boy named David as Israel’s future King being that God identified David as a “Man after my own heart”. The great King David unified the nation of Istael and made Jerusalem it’s Holy site. After David, his son with Bathsheba, Solomon took over the nation and built the first Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. However, Solomon fell into decadence and the nation splintered into the northern and southern kingdoms. After a succession of unworthy rulers who failed to bring favor upon the Israelites, in 586 B.C.E. the Babylonians ran through and siezed the Land and in the process kicked the Jews out of the Promised Land.

This is where the famous pslam where the Jews lament their dispersion from the Promised Land on the other side of the Jordan River comes from.

NOTE:

Just prior to the Babylonian dispersion, the Assyrians had sacked the northern Jewish kingdom with that kingdom’s tribes being conquered, dispersed or otherwise assimilated into the Assyrian culture. This is the fate of the famous 10 lost tribes of Israel. After the Assyrian conquest only the tribes of the southern kingdom remained to include David’s tribe, the tribe of Judah, hence the current name of Jews.

Nevertheless the Jews from the southern kingdom where banished from the Land after the Babylonian conquest in 586 B.C.E. Shortly thereafter Cyrus the Great, ruler of the Persian Empire took the region from the Babylonians. Cyrus brought with him the Zoaorastrian religion, the ancient native religion of Persia. YA, THAT’S RIGHT, ZOAORASTRIANISM IS THE ORIGINAL RELIGION OF PERSIA NOT, I REPEAT NOT Islam!!!!!!!!

NOTE:

I find it confusing that Iranians, who are descended from the ancient Persian peoples and do NOT consider themselves Arabians in the slightest (Persians are Persians and Arabs are Arabs and don’t confuse the two or risk insulting a Persian) have let Islam perpetrate a fraud on their culture. The Iranians hold pride in their history as Persians one would think Iranians would seek to embrace the indigenous religion which is Zoaorastrianism. Persians (Iranians) became Muslims through conquer NOT convert. The ancient Persians were very proud of their faith and practiced it freely. In fact it was such a humble, respectful and at the time popular faith that it did in fact inflence Judaism significantly.

I issue a challenge to Iranians to investigate their Persian past and renew their Zoaorastrian heritage. Discover the truth about yourselves. Stop letting Islam revise your history. You were once a proud and independent culture and people who has allowed themselves to be poisoned by the eternal lie that is Islam. Let it STOP!!! You know I’m right!!!!

Now back to our history presentation:

Under Cyrus the Great the Jews were allowed back into the Promised Land and allowed to reconstuct their Temple. Cyrus gave the Jews religious liberty and as mentioned, his Zoaorastrian faith greatly and permanently influenced the Jewish narrative.

After the Persians, the Greeks under Alexander the Great took over the Near East. The Greeks briught with them their Hellenic culture. So influential and enriching was the Greek culture that most of the ancient Biblical manuscpipts are written in Greek.

The Romans conquered the Greeks in 395 B.C.E. The Jews were a very unruly bunch to their Roman conquerers. There were many little uprisings. One in particular, the Maccabean rebellion, allowed the Jews to recapture their Holy Land for a short time, though they were still under Roman rule.

In 70 A.D. fed up with their “Jewish problem” the Romans sacked Jerusalem, destroyed the Temple for the final time and sent the Jews into permanent dispersion.

I bet you’re all wondering; Where are the Palestinian peoples.

Well to throw salt in the wounds of the Jews, to grind the knife a little deeper, the Romans renamed the Promised Land Palestine. The name was a nod to the ancient enemies of the Jews, the Philistines (Remember Goliath???). Do NOT even dare try to equate contemporary Palestinians with the ancient Philistines!!!! It is a historical fact that the Philistinians were known as “Peoples from the sea”. They were thought to have been an ancient peoples who migrated east from possibly the ancient region of Greece. The Philistines are also an ancient people now extinct. And what is ABSOLUTE is that there is NO Arab connection to the ancient Philistines just as there is NO Arab connection to the ancient Canaanites.

So after the Romans sacked Jerusalem, destroyed their Temple and kicked the Jews out of the Promised Land then renamed the territory Palestine, ANYBODY living in that territory became a Palestinian!!! You could be a Palestinian Jew or a Palestinian Christian and once Islam was founded come 500 odd years after the naming of the Land of Palestine by the Romans, you could be a Palestinian Arab/Muslim.

A Palestinian was just a teritorial designation. It meant the same as being a Californian or a New Yorker. You could live in the territory no matter your faith or ethnicity as long as you abided by the dictates of whoever possessed the land.

That IS all being a Palestinian meant. It was a piece of land possessed by alien empires. There was NOTHING indigenous or native about being a Palestinian!!! The Arabs can NOT even claim first rights to the land since Palestine is NOT part of Arabia and Islam did NOT even exist when Palestine was named!!! DUH!!!!

The land passed on to the Byzantines after the fall of the Roman Emoire.

The Arabs made their prescence in Palestine in the mid-600’s A.D. This is when the newly born Islam began running roughshod through the Middle East.

Then the Crusades ensued and the land of Palestine changed hands from Christian to Muslim back and forth untill the Arabs were finally victorious. Eventually the Turks took the land from their Muslim bretheren and the Ottoman Empire riegned from about 1517 to just after WWI. The Ottoman Empire was the last of the Muslim Caliph’s.

Well, the Ottoman Empire was on the losing end of WWI. They were kicked out of the Middle-East by the Brits who were now the possesseres of Palestine and ruled over the land through the Palestine mandate. The Brits were motivated by an energized Zionist movement to return the Jews to the Promised Land. The Balfour Declaration was the understanding to establish a home for the Jews in the Land of ancient Palestine. Then in1923 the Brits in a political payoff to the Hashemite tribe of Arabia for their support and cooperation in WWI divided Palestine into an Arab ONLY state and established the Hashem monarchy to rule over that state which became Trans-Jordan before becoming what is known as today as simply Jordan. With this newly created Arab ONLY state encompassing most of the Land, the remaining sliver of land was inhabited by both Jews and Arab/Muslims.

As I hope is abundantly clear, this Arab ONLY section which was the vast majority of the land that is named Jordan was once a part of ancient Palestine. That would therefore make it’s inhabitants Palestinians NOT Jordanians. As is true, Jordanians were a modern invention by the Brits who were struggling to make everyone who lived in the region have a “happy-place” to call home while at the same time trying to reward the Hahemite tribe of Arabia for their war time support.

The Hashemite monarchy is the minority in Jordan and it is a fact that MOST Jordanians consider themselves Palestinians for obvious reasons because they were living in what was known as Palestine before the Brits renamed the land Jordan. Obviously the Arabs in Jordan have a cultural connection to the so-called Palestinian “refugees”. Why don’t they end the refugee problem and give them refuge in Jordan and allow the Jews some peace on their little piece of coastline? But that would be much too easy because the Jews would no longer be able to be painted as the creator’s of the “refugee” problem.

Anyways, after the Brits created Trans-Jordan they still had the problem of what to do with the Jews and Arab/Muslims still living together in what little land was left of ancient Palestine. The international community struggled to settle the problem. Every solution was rejected by the Arab nations no matter how confined the territory for the Jews nor matter how many conscessions the Jews were willing to make.

After WWII, the UN Partition Plan divided the remaining territory into a Jewish state and an Arab ONLY state (FACT: No such thing as an exclusive Arab/Palestinian people even existed at this point). Even the Brits who had governed and subsidized Jordan ever since they created it had enough of the headaches with the Arabs, gave Jordan it’s soveriegnity and the vacated the Middle East.

Once the Israeli’s declared the independence of the newly created state of Israel in 1948, the Arab nations decided to attack Israel to eradicate it from the map. The Arab nations instructed those Arabs in the territories to vacate then once the Arabs successfully wiped out the Jews the Arabs could move back into the territory.

The problem was that the Jews won the war and won big-time!!! The tiny, infant Israeli nation beat back the entire Middle Eastern Muslim world!! And that my friends is what created the so-called “refugee” problem. The “refugee’s” are a problem created Arab/Muslim arrogance, refusal to be reasonable and a lack of humanity. And it’s continued instigation and moral cries of outrage over the plight of Arab/Muslim/Palestinians are the sole responsibility of the Arab/Muslim world. Jordan could simply give the Arab/Muslim/”Palestionian” “refugee’s” refuge in their land, after all, Jordanians were once themselves the very same exact thing prior to the Brits creation of a specific Arab ONLY nation for them. DUH!!!

Starting to see how this whole Palestinian beef is built on a fallacy like MOST things Muslim?!!!

Jews andArabs had lived side-by-side through conquest and alien rule in Palestine for centuries since 70 A.D. There was never a distinct statehood by those living in the region. They had always excepted the rule of whoever possessed the territory. The Arab Palestinians NEVER made a peep about their soveriegnty or any native claims to the Land.They NEVER considered themselves indigenous to the Land. Like everything else Islam this is just more revisionist history to make Muslims look like the poor, innocent victims and excuse their terrorism.

All these claims to indigeny and soveriegnty started with the creation of the PLO. So much disinformation has been portrayed as fact and truth that people ignorant of it all actually believe that their is such a thing as a soverign, native Palestinian/Arab/Muslim people. Just as Mohammed went back and revised history to his unknowledgable followers to lay claim to Abraham, the Muslims have done the same thing to create the fallacy that a seperate and distinct Arab/Muslim/Palestinian state has always existed. I hope you can figure out that it never has.

So after the war in ’48, in ’67 after many warnings from tthe Israeli’s to the Arabs to back off, Israel attacked and the 6-day war ensued. The West Bank and Garza Strip which were annexed by Jordan and Egypt in’48 respectively were re-captured by the Jews, hence what today is known as the occupied territories.

Peculiar thing though, Jordan and Egypt, two Arab/Muslim nations controlled the West Bank and Gaza from ’48-’67 and NEVER once was a peep heard from those Arab/Muslim Palestinian “refugee’s” living in those controlled territories about their independence. And NEVER once did those two Arab/Muslim nations (Jordan/Egypt) offer or propose to grant their Arab/Muslim/Palestinian “refugee” brothers their independence!!!! If they had done so that would have been the two-state solution everybody talks about today. But if the Muslims had done that they’d still have little “Jewish problem”. And that’s what this was about because Muslims won’t be happy untill there aren’t any Jews, that’s what they really want because the public record clearly shows the Jews have tried innumerable times to give up land for peace only to get rejected by the Muslims who adanmantly REFUSE to concede to acknowledge Israeli statehood.

The anti-semites, self-loathing Jews, progressives, the HATE everything America/West crowd fan the flames of this Muslim fabrication. It’s just so sad we don’t have people out there in the world with a real desire to investigate history because an objective analysis done with a critical eye will lead one to the only logical conclusion: The cries of Arab /Muslim/Palestinian independence and statehood are not founded on anything historically tangible. It’s just more Jew-hatred and a desire to legitimize Islam and the re-written Muslim history which is nothing more than a distortion and the biggest lie ever perpetrated on the world.

The only thing left to do is pray for our Jewish brothers. Pray that they stay strong and faithful in God. It is clear Obama has cut them loose and will not protect them. I hope they have the courage and wisdom to sustain themselves through these dark times.

Why are we always told to “Be the bigger man?” What is meant by that? What are we suppossed to get out of “Being the bigger man?” Are we not living breathing human beings with blood flowing through are viens with real thoughts, emotions and feelings that drive our actions and decisions? Do people think it is that easy to just shut off your conciousness and accept something that your heart and intellect will NOT allow you to accept ? To actually FORCE yourself to bend-over-backwards, go against your every natural instinct to just have something jamned down your throat without any concern being given to the relevance of what you feel.

Ya, being the “Bigger man” makes everyone else happy, but what about you? How much more psychological damage have you done to yourself? How many more emotions are you gonna have to bottle up inside yourself? And in doing so how further will you’re interactions with others become tainted?

I’m am not saying refusing to be the “Bigger man” is right. It may very well not be. It may not be the morally virtuous thing to do. If you believe in God, your decision to not be the “Bigger man” may not be looked upon unfavorably and may be held against you in judgement. You may face anger and rebuke from those around you who react in a knee-jerk fashion and themselves judge you harshly. And from their point-of-view there may be some relevance.

I’m not excusing or defending the action of refusing to be the “Bigger man”. I’m just proposing that it is an available option and those choosing that option should in no way feel guilty for doing do. I’m also not proposing the seeking of vengence or carrying on a vendetta. I am in no way encouraging hurting or even hating anyone. And get ready because on the surface when you choose to not be the “Bigger man” you will immediately be accused of holding hate in your heart. The only thing I’m advocating is doing what is healthy for yourself. Doing what you need to do to allow yourself to surrvive mentally, spiritually, emotionally and whatever else it takes to get you to be able to live in your own head, look at yourself in the mirror and stop the voices from reverberating in your conscience.

There is no way as a human being that you can be any use to yourself and the people around you unless you get your own house in order. You have to make things right with you before you can ever act in the world in a good way. You have to make yourself the best you can ever be before you can ever be a positive influence on those you come in contact with. And taking the crap others force on you is not going to accomplish that.

Some may argue on how being the “Bigger man” is a higher level of humanity and it is that example that you should convey. But what if being the “Bigger man” is destroying you on the inside? What if doing that makes you ashamed of yourself to yourself? What if doing that racks your conscience with unrest? If all that is so, you are only going to be a more unhealthy person and all that animosity festering inside you is only going to rear it’s ugly head later on down the road.

Being the “Bigger man” isn’t always the right thing to do. I myself feel it only exposes you as a sucker and opens you up to being walked all over again in the future. So if you suck it up and take whatever crap is being jammned down your throat what is the other party who is the benefit of you being the “Bigger man ” learning? Ya, I know that you’re suppossed to set the example then the other person is suppossed to be humbled by your compassion then that’s suppossed to make them in turn a more compassionate person who learns the errors of their ways.

Well, nothing ever works as it’s proposed on paper. The other party most times doesn’t even feel they’ve done anything wrong so your being the “Bigger man” act only has meaning for you not the other party.

My remedy instead of being the “Bigger man” is to just shut the door, leave the past in the past and just live in the reality of the present. The argument will be to bury the past and start anew. YES, MY POINT EXACTLY!!! But since you feel that you’ve been the wronged party, since you feel as if you have wounds that can NEVER be healed, since you’ve contented yourself to live with those unhealable wounds, since you do NOT feel the need to justify your hurt feelings to the other party to hear their side, since you’re fine with NEVER building that broken bridge and finding common ground, since you do NOT feel that the bonds or connections you had with the other party needs to be repaired, maybe you do not feel there was really any strong bond in the first place or maybe one never really even existed at all and it’s just outside parties or the other party trying to begin building something on a foundation that never even existed at all, since you don’t feel like getting bogged down in a revision of history debate, since you do not feel like getting in a tit-for-tat discussion which is really an inarguable scenario anyway, what is so wrong with your decision to just “Not-Go-There”?

That is what you’ve decided to be your closure. You have buried the past, completely comfortable in in never revisiting the issue(s) again. You have deicided that what is healthy for you is to embrace reality and to live in that reality. The truth of reality is to live in the present and work to change the things within your capabilities.

Now I know I’m gonna get that knee-jerk response about working to change the relationship with the other party. You always get told that that would be a good place to start. But what if your completely fine with not working to change anything with that party. Maybe that’s what the other party wants or “concerned” parties involved want.

Why are the parties that want YOU to “rebuild” the relationships and be the “Bigger man” right but your desire to just shut the door on the whole issue is considered wrong?

You must understand, I’m not advocating a denial of your feelings and grievances because that would in fact be unhealthy. But if you’ve given yourself the time to use your intellect to reflect on the whole issue in an objective and critical manner where you’ve answered the tough questions, accepted truths, bitter as they may have been to swallow, accepted your own role in the situation and have then come to a decision that you can live with and is healthy to your psyche and which allows you to contribute constructively to those around you and the world in general then what is so wrong even if it’s not what others want.

Burying the past is just that, burying the past. But that doesn’t mean we all have to “Have-a-Coke-and-a-smile-and-live-in-perfect-harmony”. That kind of “Kumbaya” revisionist history is what is unhealthy!! That desire to create something that never existed is a waste of time and in the end it is that kind of unhealthiness that projects itself in a future destructive manner.

Forcing a human being to deny the truth and just go along with what is gonna make everyone else happy when their are other non-desstructive options out their is NOT fair. The knee-jerk will consider my position selfish because I’m only thinking about my mental, emotional and spiritual well-being when if I’d only suck-it-up and eat some crow I’d relieve the other party and those “concerned” parties of the disappointment over my refusal to mend-fences and be the “Bigger man”. Well, I say to them, why doesn’t that make THEM selfish. They want what they want at the expense of my sanity. They do not care about how I truly feel, they’re only thinking about what will make them feel happy. They do not care to address my feelings, they just want me to adopt their whole be the “Bigger man” position and then everyone will be happy while I feel like my feelings have been disregarded.

Don’t let them fool you by wrapping themselves in moral sanctitude as they throw out every cliche’ (Bigger-man, bury-the-hatchet, start-fresh, let-bygones-be-bygones, blah-blah-blah) that is devoid of intellectual and moral honesty. Those cliches’ do not mean anything, they’re just intellectual shortcuts to make you look like the moral heathen. Well, morality is a two-way street. It’s just insane to expect a person who feels grieved to make themselves vulnerable to more disrespect of their feelings!

When you decide NOT to be the “Bigger man”, you also leave yourself wide-open to the moralists who LOVE to preach and throw God’s words around. They manipulate any Biblical verse they can get their hands on to throw it in your face. They get judgemental and tell you what it is God wants you to do. I don’t want to get into a theological debate because what the Bilble-thumpers never understand is that theological discussions can never be final. The word of God is very DEEP, the message has to be taken in it’s entire context NOT cherry-pick verses to fit the Bible-thumpers judgements. But what is even more insulting to me about the Bible-thumpers, (Especially when they do it to someone who has a knowledge about the Bible) is when they cast dispersions on you. They tell you what lies ahead for you from God if you do NOT do what they want you to do.

They do not know what you’ve prayed to God for, what you’ve asked Him to have mercy on your soul for, what you’ve asked forgivness for, what you’ve prayed for deliverance from, they haven’t been their in your private times when you’ve spoken to God to tell Him how you’ve felt, what you were and were not capable of doing. I’m not one of these protestant Bible-thumpers who claim on a regular basis that God speaks to them or the Holy Spirit filled their souls and told them what to do. I’m not going to make that claim for a second. But all God-fearing men pray to God and say what they say. The things we do may be right, they may be wrong, the decisions we make may set us on a path towards hell. We are all humans endowed with inherrant faults which is by no means an excuse for sinful actions. However as imperfect beings their are some things we can and can not force ourselves to do. The best thing we can do, no matter how good or bad we are is to ask that God shows mercy on our souls.

So the Bible-thunpers can take their judgements and save them for themselves. Unless they are perfect they have absolutely NO right passing judgement on anyone! Who do they think they are! I’m not against someone counseling me or even using the Bible to help me work through a problem. I in fact think that is very healthy. But you lose me for good when you start with your finger-pointing and rebuking like you’re one of the inspired prophets from the Hebrew Bible!! You have NO right. If you think I’m wrong try to be humble and show me but you’re NOT gonna get anywhere thumping your Bible and branding me destined for hell!!

Back to shutting the door and living in reality. If you decide not to have someone in your life, what’s so wrong? If you can work through all the “JUNK” that you’re feeling then decide that you do not want to share your life with that person for reasons that are valid to you, what’s so wrong?

Look, if you feel you have issues with that other person but you wish no ill-will towards them, you do not hate them, you do not constantly want to talk about your beef with them and carry on some kind of vendetta, you want them to prosper and have a good life and good things, you wish fulfillment to those mutaual parties that do continue to have a relationship with that person but you yourself choose not to have a relationship with that person, why are you the bad guy? Why can’t your decision be respected? You’re not hurting anybody. You are the one truly burying the past. Because to me burying the past means just that. Closing a chapter in your life and never going back there again. The healthy thing is new move on to a new chapter in your life.

Because burying the past in the way the morally superior would have you do it really means forcing yourself to eat-crow and whoever can eat-crow the best is the “Bigger man”. But I’ll never understand how you can ask a human being to do that? Because to me when you bury the past that does not mean you erase your memory it just means you aren’t going to ever dwell on anything again. Burying the past in the moralists viewpoint is really asking you to erase what you feel. To look at this other person and just pretend like nothing ever happened, to engage them and be around them and act like everything is and always has been “Hunky-dory” and “Kumbaya”. Ya, lets all have another “Coke-and-a-smile-and-live-in-perfect-harmony”. DUH!!!

C’mon, lets be reasonable. I feel that’s an insult to any intelligent human beings intelligence!!! Once again, My position of burying the past and living in the present once you’ve reconciled your decision in your mind without carrying on any vengence is healthy and NOT wrong morally.

Now the whole “bigger man” thing may work for some people. Engaging, addressing grievances, re-hashing the same tired crap, finding-common ground, building bridges, etc., etc. may work great for some. They may be able to shut off their intellect, emotions , hurt feelings, put blinders on, revise history to paint a never-existing rosy picture and whatever other illusions helps them be the “Bigger man”. But for those who aren’t idiots and refuse to make up some fantasy and try to turn it into reality their are other options. And choosing the other option as long as it does NOT hurt anyone is NOT wrong.

Thank God humanity has been endowed with this great man, Obama, who I’m not even ready to call a man because I suspect he may in fact be a diety. Oh, what would humanity do whithout the sage words of the annointed one to always set the record straight and cause all of us lesser beings to search our souls to come to accept the truths of the great issues of the day. Only the mind of this trancendent figure could come to the answers all us ignorants search for so blindly.

Oh Messiah how we thank the for finally setting the world straight on the nuclear aspirations of the Iranians. Of course all along these “peace-loving” Muslims were only striving to enhance their ability to deliver nuclear energy to their society.

Oh, forgive us oh great one for jumping to conclusions. Imagine all these years of diplomacy, coddling, summits, even threats, the difficult tasks of building international consensus’ to condemn the Iranians pursuit of nuclear weaponry, the signing of treaties, the international sanctions that deprived this “peaceful” nation of their basic neccessities, and any other number of evil devices we used to deny the Iranians their right to pursue nuclear energy to power their economy.

Oh woe be us oh Messiah of Messiah’s, what must we do as pennance to correct our evil assumptions? Please show us mercy oh great one for holding too fast to our stereotypes of the Muslim terrorists. Our own ignorance caused us to assume that the Iranians could have anything but evil intentions for nuclear power. We were quick to accuse and point finger because we lack the wisdom of you oh great and annointed one.

How could we ever expect the Muslims would have anything but altruistic intentions for nuclear power? After all we have let the evil propaganda from the West cloud our thinking. Of course the Iranians only care for the enviroment! They are after all Muslims, which means they are inherrently endowed by the Creator with a moral virtue greater than all other cultures. Never mind the fact that they’re standing on top of some of the worlds largets oil reserves. Why would they want to simply drill through sand to capture that oil and power their society? To continue to do so would only cause continued destruction of the ozone layer and increase global warming and the like.

Oh, if we could only be so morally upright as the Iranians. Oh, if only we had their virtue. Oh, if only we had their courage. The continued path of burning cheap oil as if the world had an infinite supply has to end. Those wise Iranians have realized this and it is they who have undertaken the difficult process of getting off oil.

Never mind the words the maniacal words spewed by Achmedinejad. Oh, no can’t us narrow minded Westerners understand that one man does not a nation or culture make. Shame on us for buying into stereotypes or even believing the words out of a man’s mouth. Didn’t we all learn that lesson just recently when that “crazed gunman” killed that Army recriuter? Or when 19 Muslims commited suicide by flying planes into buildings killing thousands of Americans? Oh, those were just isolated incidents not indicative of an entire culture .

So we must dismiss the ravings of an Achmedinejad and look at the Iranian nation as a hold and follow their truly virtuous example. The Iranians have a more vested interset in oil than even us. It is their greatest natural resource, the source of the majority of their wealth, it is what powers their society and guarantees their soveriegnty. But the Iranians are going to bite the bullet, swallow hard, leave that oil where it lies and continue to pursue a nuclear energy program to power their nation and do their part in saving the enviroment.

And now that the great one has endorsed their pursuit and enlightened the rest of the world on what their intentions have always been, the Iranians I’m sure are going to go full force ahead. All criticisms will roll off their shoulders because the have the understand of the mighty one behind them.

But if the Iranians have the moral OK from the Messiah to go forth in their pursuit of nuclear energy, it begs the question: Why can’t the United States do the same?

The familiar liberal, progressive refrain has been that nuclear energy is unsafe, hazardous and dangerous. When anyone argues otherwise and starts to gain some intelligent ground, the critics just blurt out:

“What? Do you want another 3-mile island”

End of discussion! Knee-jerk wins!

But I wonder if those using that line even know anything about it. Most using that as a criticism against nuclear energy weren’t even born or were much too young to have any relevant point of reference about what really happened. And if that is so most, UNLIKE myself never even bother to research the topic. I’m not going to give you a point by point because if you really care about being knowledgeable about it you can research youself. But it can be said there were no deaths or contaminations from that 3-mile island “spill”.

3-mile island is a myth that gained popularity from a Hollywood movie of that name. But that’s all the knee-jerk, emotionally hallenged progressives nedd to perpetrate that myth that has survived to this day to give nuclear power plants a bad reputation. I could write a disertation on the safety of nuclear energy. The scientfic community has and continues to perfect the handling of nuclear energy and waste that the possibilty of contamination to humans and the enviroment is infintesimal. Don’t believe me? Look it up for yourself! I’m confident enough in the information out there to make my statements!

Don’t give me Chernobyl either. AMERICAN ingenuity won’t allow that to happen and in fact has stopped it from ever happening. France has powered the majority of their economy with nuclear energy for years without incident. America is taking every page out of Frances socialist playbook, why not do the same with Nuclear energy?

Don’t talk to me about the nuclear waste in the dumping sites in the mountains of Nevada. It’s proven to be safe and not even remotely hazardous to human health or the enviroment. Once again, don’t believe me, look it up.

The progressives don’t want nuclear power because it’s too cost efficient. They won’t be able to tax the crap out of the population in the same way they will with all that other cost inefficient crap like wind-turbines/mills, corn, batteries and the like.

But this still doesn’t answer my question about why it is morally OK for the Iranians to pursue nuclear energy but not for the United States? What makes the Iranian pursuit of nuclear energy some kind of virtue while the Wests are once again labeled “evil destroyers”?

I am positive that Obama can manipulate some kind of rationalization that only his warped mind can. It’ll have something to do with the natural moral superiority of Islam as oppossed to the “evil”, “intolerance” of America because every thought in his diluded head is clouded by his chip-on-his-shoulder against this nation who he believes has done him wrong.

I don’t doubt for a heart-beat that Obama can fabricate a justification for anything a Muskim nation does. I have never seen anything like this guy. He’s not even the slickster his critics give him credit for being. Now “Slick Willie” that was a s;ickster. Even if you didn’t like him you had to admire his ability to finagle out of a situation. “Slick Willie” was a master lier, he’d wrap every lie in some kind of semblance of the truth, change the topic or redefine the issue as well as any other number of tricks that all the truly great slicksters possess.

Obama on the other hand talks out of both sides of his mouth, giving it away with one breath then taking it back with the very next, leaving critci and apologist alike with something to hang their hat on. Then when he’s criticized he just pulls out a contradiction from his own mouth to defend himself. His strategy is to confuse by saying anything then denying and having all kinds of self-spoken contractions to use in his own defense. I guess he learned that from reading the Koran and the prophet Mohammed.

Obama’s tactics are actually insulting to the intelligence of any intelligent person that cares about what’s really going on. Anyone that educates themselves will quickly discover this charlatan’s game. Forget about dancing around issues, this faker just lies and lies and denies and denies. He’ll tell you you didn’t see what you just saw and didn’t hear what you just heard then change his story over and over and tell you your eyes and ears missed what you thought you saw and heard. He’ll keep on repeating the lie so many times that he convinces so many people to go along with what he’s saying that eventually even those refusing to go along either give in or just shut their mouths in frustration.

The reason he gets away with this con-job is because he’s been able to build such a cult of personality. He speaks in the broad sweeping waves, trying to draw in as many people as possible then wrap all his rhetoric is this moral superiority. His sets the bar of virtue for all of us then calls us all to live up to it. He presents his principles as the only right ones and that anyone not ready to follow his “example” is of an insignificant status. He scolds, admonishes and hurls guilt upon everyone.

So either way Obama WILL be able to justify Iran’s pursuit of nuclear “energy”

Now as to that issue. Obama said in his speech:

“No single nation should pick and choose which nations should hold nuclear weapons”

So Iran has recieved the endorsement from the great one to “hold” nuclear weapons. See here we go again with his double talk. Earlier he had said that Iran would have to adhere to some non-proliferation treaty but could still pursue nuclear “energy” concerns. But then in Cairo he’s essentially saying it’s ok to “hold” nuclear weapons. So what is it, oh annionted one”? What do the Iranians have to adhere to and what can they pursue? And since you HAVE condemned North Korea’s recent actions with nuclear bombs, it begs the question; Don’t they have the same right to “hold” nuclear weapons? Oh, ya I forgot, North Korea isn’t a Muslim nation so there pursuit of nuclear “whatever” MUST be for evil purposes. Only those “PEACE-LOVING” Muslims engage is altruistic actions. It’s only Muslims who can be trusted to act in the best interests of mankind. Please forgive my insensitive western mind. You must remember, oh, great one, I am just a flawed westerner looking to you, oh majestic one for guidance.

So there you have it, Obama has just inaugurated an Islamic arms race and as his method of operation he has draped it in moral superiority. He has wagged a subliminal finger at the country he leads, dare should America ever think it there place to choose which nations in the world can “hold” nuclear weapons, especially when the Iranians would never even think to use nuclear weaponry for evil.

Never mind the fact that Obama campaigned for a nuclear free world. I guess that only applied to the West. But if I were an Isreali I’d be very worried. The great one’s Cairo speech was a clear and present signal that if it’s up to him, you’re on your own. He’s not gonna do absolutely anything to stop Iran’s hegmony in the region, infact, he’s gonna encourage it the best he can. And if Obama is successful on employing his usual methods, by the time he’s done, Iran will be this valiant saint, a just and righteous nation, innocent in everything thing, only percieving to the ignorant to be engaging in terrorism as they struggle against a history of imperialistic suppression from an anti-Arab world. Obama will have Iran looking like freedom fighters. And the Jews will be the devil! Oh how sad!